Delhi High Court
Bhasin Tobaccos Ltd And Ors. vs Gambro Nexim India Medical ... on 18 April, 2017
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 73/2017
BHASIN TOBACCOS LTD & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. Amit Sibbal, Senior Advocate
with Mr.S.K. Gandhi, Ms.Manjula
Gandhi, Mr.Shivanshu Kumar, Mr.Aditya
Kapoor, Advocate.
versus
GAMBRO NEXIM INDIA MEDICAL LIMITED & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Ananya Bhattacharya, Advocate
for R1 to R3.
Mr. Sunil Magon, Advocate for R4, R5.
Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Mr.Tushar Gupta,
Advocate for R6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 18.04.2017
1. The appellants/plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order dated
15th March, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in IA
No.15254/2016, an application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3
(defendant Nos. 1 to 3) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same is
barred under Section 18 & 34 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and
Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 points out that the
order dated 01.03.2017 has not attained finality so far as IA
No.15254/2016 is still pending consideration before the learned Single
Judge. To substantiate the said submission, she hands over a copy of the
order dated 15th March, 2017 passed in CS(COMM) No.962/2016, which
shows that IA No.15254/2016 is still pending on the suit file.
3. Mr. Amit Sibbal, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants does not deny the said factual position but points out that the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 are relying on the impugned order before the
Recovery Officer, DRT-II, to the prejudice the appellants, knowing very
well that the said order has yet to attain the finality.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 states that the
appellants have been participating in the proceedings initiated by the
respondent No. 6/Bank before the Recovery Officer of DRT-II, Delhi
where they have filed objections which are being contested by the
respondent Nos. 1 and 3. She seeks to explain that reliance placed on the
impugned order dated 1st March, 2013, before the Recovery Officer DRT-
II, Delhi was only to apprise the said forum about the status of the suit
proceedings and no more.
5. The said submission is however disputed by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants.
6. A perusal of the order dated 1st March, 2013 passed by the
Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi (Annexure-P) indicates that the
adjudication of the objections filed by the appellants are being insisted
upon though the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 3 under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is still pending final adjudication on the
original side of this Court.
7. Having regards to the fact that a final order has yet to be passed by
the learned Single Judge in IA No. 15254/2016, we do not consider it
appropriate to entertain the present appeal which is apparently premature.
The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. However, it is clarified that the
respondent No.1 to 3 shall not rely on the order dated 1st March, 2013
before the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi, till IA No. 15254/2016 is
finally disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
APRIL 18, 2017
gr
